law capstone paper sample

Law Capstone Paper SampleBy

http://www.capstoneproject.net/

The Missouri model of justice system

Running Head: THE MISSOURI MODEL OF JUSTICE SYSTEM

Name:

Institution:

Course:

Instructor:

Date of submission:

Introduction

For over 100 many US States had a common believe that the Juvenile Justice system was

the means by which the public would be protected from the children who are in transition to


adulthood. It was commonly agreed that children who engage in crimes were not in the same

class as the adults who committed the same crimes. It was believed that there was a higher

capacity among children to change that there is for adults. As a way of responding to these

changes, there is an establishment of a separate justice system for juveniles by the state. The

system is different, providing services related to the juvenile dissimilar to that of the adults.

Since 1899, there has been a substantial growth as well as changes in the juvenile justice system

since the establishment of the first US juvenile justice system in Illinois State. Initially, there was

an informal court system whereby the court proceedings entailed a conversation between the

judge and the youth, and the defendant did not have a legal representation. In order to separate

the juveniles’ jails from that of the adults, there was a creation of a probation system by the early

juvenile courts. At the same time, the probation system used a separate system of service

delivery to provide supervision, education, and guidance to the minors. All the US states, as well

as the District of Columbia, followed Illinois to establish the juvenile justice system (Bonnie &

National Research Council, 2013).

In 1967, a ruling in a case involving In re Gault determined that the US Constitution has a

provision for the same rights of the juveniles as well as the adults when it comes to the court

representation. These rights included that of an attorney as well as that of having a confrontation

with the witness. In 1971, the US supreme court held that there was no constitutional right for

the juveniles to have a jury trial. Today, the justice system of the youth has a primary goal of

maintaining rehabilitation and there is an important way in which this system has a distinction

from the criminal justice system. Unlike the proceedings of the crime by an adult, members of


the public are not allowed to access the hearings of the juvenile courts and the information

provided during the proceedings is usually confidential, offering protection to the child against

committing delinquency inadulthood. Some states offers therapeutic and education program, or

the child is put into the residential program. Since the 1990s, there is a steady decline in the

juvenile crime. However, when there was a rise in the rate of juvenile crime all over the US in

the late 1980s and early 1990s. There was an adoption of the “get tough” crime policies by the

states. Because of this, some youths were deprived off some of the protections offered by the

juvenile justice system. Ever since 1975, Juvenile Law Centre has make sure that there is the

involvement of the Juveniles in the Missouri justice system for the juveniles. The juveniles are

treated with dignity, given the right to acquire education and provided a chance to become

healthy as well as productive adults (Wilson & John F. Kennedy School of Government, 2013).

The US president and the Congress established the JJDP (Office of Juvenile and

Delinquency Prevention) Act of 1974, and its aim is to prevents well as control delinquency in

the US. Missouri State also developed its own Juvenile, who has atas tained success. Several

strategies make the juvenile justice system of Missouri attain this success, and these include its

location close to the homes of the juveniles. In addition, these facilities are small making their

management efficient. The facilities do not resemble the traditional cells but are more like

homes, making the juveniles be comfortable. In addition, the staffs of these facilities are well

trained to handle the juveniles. The juveniles also receive respectful as well as dignified

treatment while in these facilities. Unlike the traditional model, the Missouri juvenile justice

system uses a therapeutic as well as rehabilitative model. Its aim is to bring a positive impact to


the lives of the youths by teaching them how to be positive in life (Merlo & Benekos, 2013).

The Missouri juvenile model has achieved success because only 8 percent of the

juveniles go back to their old habits, and only 8 percent of these youths proceed to the adult

classes. A third of these juveniles receive their GED or high school diplomas while still in these

facilities, and approximately 50% go back to school. Over the last twenty years, there has been a

steady increase in the rate of juvenile incarceration. Each day, over 368 out of 100,000 juveniles

are serving their terms in correctional facilities, not to mention that all these people will be back

to their community. There is a need for a programming services continuum to assist the

population of the incarcerated juvenile to prepare them for release, go back to the community,

and leaving the prison. the aim is to ensure that there is an improvement of their success when it

comes to the adjustment to the community. In addition, such a programming service will ensure

that there is a reduction in the recidivism risk. The Missouri Model of Justice System for

Juvenile correction is hailed as being a leader in the juvenile reform area. Nevertheless, very

little empirical analysis on this program has been done. The governance of the tone and the

structure of the juvenile justice system is a periodical understanding of the delinquency and how

best the delinquency behaviour can be corrected. More focus is put on therapy as well as

education instead of punishment in the Missouri juvenile justice system. In 1980s, there was a

closure of the training schools as well as large facilities that were characterized by minimal

schooling. The aim of this paper is to conduct a policy analysis of Missouri model of the justice

system (Bonnie & National Research Council, 2013).


Policy statement

The term juvenile does not have a clear definition. Some states perceive a juvenile as

being an 18-year-old while others see a juvenile as being a 15-year-old. In Missouri, a juvenile is

a person whose age does not exceed 17 years. Nevertheless, the juvenile system of justice serves

a vulnerable as well as a marginalized population of youths guilt of a crime. The funding for this

system is mainly from the state. Various issues such as perception of events, perceptions issues, a

shift in population, and program changes have affected the Juvenile judicial system of Missouri

in immeasurable ways. Today, five referral categories do exist in Missouri, and these are status

offense, law violation, municipal/juvenile violation, abuse/negligence/custody matters, and law

violations. The focus of this study would be juvenile justice system of Missouri with the focus

being the juvenile population (Missouri Bar, 2011).

The Missouri model of the justice system is an intervention program targeting the

juvenile offenders, and it aims at reducing recidivism. Though there is a causal influences

understanding variations, the model of Missouri juvenile justice system has ensured that certain

identifiable cycles are followed. The legal thinking on delinquency and juvenile justice has

strongly influenced the state of Missouri. Many states across the US including Missouri held

their juveniles in training facilities with each gender being kept in different facilities. In 1889,

Missouri State opened tow juvenile facilities, one in Chillicothe to house female and another one

in Boonville to house the male juveniles. In 1948, there was a killing of two youth in the

Boonville facility and following this incidence, the courts became more active in influencing the


processes of the juvenile justice. In 1967, the Act of the Unified Juvenile Court was passed by

Missouri legislature and under this act; the court assumed the jurisdiction over all the adoption,

delinquency, abuse, and the status offense related cases. The law gave the provision to the court

that they should make a consideration of having the least punishment alternatives as well as

reduce the placements of out-of-home. Whereas there is an extensive criticism of the Juvenile

system of the US for its involvement in abuse as well corruption, the juvenile system of Missouri

is however transformative. It ensures that the offenders are not repeating their offense once they

go through the system (Bonnie & National Research Council, 2013).

Many offenders are passing through the Missouri facilities where they are receiving a

national commendation. Through this system, a caseworker is assigned to a group of 10-15

offenders and during the day, the offenders are allowed to go to school. In addition, the offenders

are also allowed to engage in co-curriculum activities such as sports and play production. The

offenders are also taught how to work as a team, and this is through mingling together through

mountain climbing and camping. Through this system, many teenagers are becoming better

citizens. There is an emulation of this system by several states including Virginia, New Mexico,

California, and Louisiana. Washington State, for instance, closed its troubled juvenile centre of

detention namely Oak Hill Youth Centre in 2009 and rebuilt it to look like the model of

Missouri. There has been a change in the Missouri system from its traditional punitive system

that was characterized by harsh conditions such as rape, beatings, and sometimes death.

Tremendous improvement in the model took place in the 1970s. Under the model, the juveniles

whose crimes are minor such as trespassing or skipping classes are placed in cottages or low-


security houses in a group of 10 kids. The small size is essential as it ensure that there is efficacy

among the staff members when it comes to working with the individual offenders. The system

also provides that delinquencies with violent crimes are put into gated facility with a capacity of

holding about 50 offenders. It offers the same atmosphere of the group as well as ensure that its

focus is on rehabilitation. Having been placed in small groups, the offenders are also provided

counselling services as well as allowed to go to school. Once a juvenile is found to have acquired

good behaviour as well as demonstrated progress, he or she can e released after a short time.

Critics stipulate that the Missouri juvenile system is too lenient on juvenile delinquency and that

it may contribute to the youth not becoming law abiding. However, studies done on this system

indicates that very few people who have gone through the juvenile system of Missouri tend to get

into the trouble compared to high number of juveniles in other systems (Merlo & Benekos,

2013).

The laws and policies direct the direct the juvenile justice system and they (the laws and

policies) are guided by parens doctrine. It requires that the state to act as the parent to ensure that

the interests of juveniles whom they serve are met. The Missouri system of Juvenile was

established and improved so that it would respond to the numerous needs of the youths, running

simultaneously with the teachers, caregivers, protectors, and ensuring that the community safety

is a priority. The objectives of parens patriae also necessitate the tailoring of the administrative

decisions to individual children. The operations of the Missouri juvenile justice system take

place with limited resources as well as with more obscure goals than the criminal justice does

(Merlo & Benekos, 2013). The juvenile justice system in Missouri has undergone numerous


reforms including the construction of the juvenile correction centres with a dormitory style. The

focus of the Missouri juvenile justice system is in therapy as well as comfortable conditions of

living with a great emphasis on job training as well as on education (Wilson & John F. Kennedy

School of Government, 2013).

Prior to the 1970s reform, the Missouri juvenile justice system was littered with poor

strategies that led to the rise of crime rate, endangered the juveniles, wasted a lot of money, and

damaged the bright future of the youths. The policy also violated the profound meaning of the

equal rights provided for in the law. Despite numerous scholars as well as juvenile practitioners

providing the direction on how the juvenile justice system should be done, there was a consistent

failure of this system in many states. However, the Missouri system has achieved success in the

last 20 years, and many states are already reconstituting their system to resemble that of

Missouri. The primary function of the juvenile system of justice is the preventing a juvenile from

recommitting the offense. Although the court plays the role of preventing the breaking of the

laws by the community, it will continue to respond to the adolescents who continue to engage in

delinquency within the community. While providing services or imposing sanctions, the court

will have the final say concerning the type as well as the intensity of the interventions for the

juveniles. The knowledge about the adolescent development is essential when it comes to the

making of the decision with the aim of preventing the reoffending among the adolescents (Merlo

& Benekos, 2013).


The justice system of the juveniles in the US has struggled for a long a long time with the innate

tension between the role of the system in ensuring that the punishment for the violation of the

law is met and the role of the system to ensure that the juveniles are attaining a constructive

behaviour. The juvenile justice system should ensure that the public is protected from the harm

brought about by the juvenile offenders, and it should ensure that these juveniles are leading a

productive life in future. To attain these goals, it is important to control the short-term behaviour

as well as having a means to induce a behaviour change that will continue even after the juvenile

is not supervised by the court. Missouri juvenile justice system uses various methods to control

the acts of the juveniles and among the old methods included the use of the community

supervision as well as custodial care (Merlo & Benekos, 2013).

Approximately 93,000 youths are placed in the facilities of juvenile justice across the US. The state-

funded, residential and the post-adjudication facilities holds approximately 70% of these youths. Each

day, each youth held in these facilities spends about $240.99 each day. Since most states are spending a

lot of budgetary constraint, there is a need for the states to reconsider ways that would reduce the

spending on the juvenile justice system. The state of Missouri is also spending a lot to keep the youths in

the facilities, and it falls under this category. The rate of recidivism is higher among the adolescents who

are imprisoned that the youths who serve in the community. Policies whose aim is to confine children

do not guarantee public safety. According to studies, states that raised the youth number in the facilities

did not have a reduction in the crime rate. According to studies, recidivism rates can best be reduced by

the use of the community-based programs. Such programs also promote positive outcomes of life.

Studies have indicated that the rate of recidivism can be reduced by about 22% using these programs.

Low cost is incurred by using the community-based programs than by using incarceration. There is


efficacy in community-based program and at the same time, the programs have been shown to produce

more benefits in terms of public safety than putting the youths into the detention or incarcerating them.

There is an existence of numerous theories to give an explanation why there is a rise in the

youth numbers that are placed under the juvenile justice system. Among these theories include the idea

that there is a rise of young members of the gang. The Missouri model of the juvenile justice has been

embraced nationally as the model to emulate. The Missouri model has a great emphasis on small

facilities, and its focus is on rehabilitation as well as support for the youths. The model has been shown

to influence positively the youths and to improve the safety of the public. While in the facilities, the

youths can attain the educational benchmarks at a rate similar to the youths who serve their terms at

the prisons. Although the best practice to treat the youths who have broken the law, if there is a need to

confine a young person, the best model to emulate is the Missouri model. However, there is a need for

more focus on the community-based programs instead of confinement. In terms of cost, the

community-based programs are inexpensive compared to the confinement. Research investigating the

effects of community-based versus the institutional interventions has shown that more positive

outcomes are achieved by youths who undergo treatment in community-based programs. According to

research, the best way to enhance public safety is to ensure that there is more investment in the

community-based youth programs as this will also save money. Another recommendation is to ensure

the rate of employment among the youths is improved. According to studies, there is a less likelihood

for an employed youth to engage in crime than an unemployed youth. Another strategy will involve

establishing programs within the community that that will address issues such drug and substance

abuse, mental illnesses, as well as the emotional distress that occur as a result of trauma. Subsequently,

it is important for the jurisdiction to ensure that the confined youths are receiving care even after they


transit into the community. Such care would include arranging for housing, employments, and other

support for the youth once they are released from the confinement.

The policy will discuss the juvenile justice system and will look at how the efficacy of the

Missouri justice system in preventing crime. The recommendations provided by this policy will assist the

law enforcers and the people involved in the youth rehabilitative efforts, to be effective in their work.

The policy will strengthen the current reforms made to the juvenile system, assisting other policymakers

in developing better policies and this in term will help them to avoid discrimination. In addition, the

policy will be essential in assisting in predicting the juvenile justice system’s future. The policy intends to

give the description of the juvenile justice system in Missouri State.

Literature review

The primary purpose of the criminological theory is to assist an individual in

understanding criminal justice as well as a crime. Through the theories, we are able to learn

about how the laws are made as well as how they are broken, deviant, and criminal behaviours,

and the criminal activities pattern. Theories are also essential as they are used in guiding the

policy making. Several theories would conduct this study, and they include the following:

Absolute deterrence: this entails any form of crime that is being prevented due to the presence of


formal system to ensure that a person is receiving punishment for committing a criminal act.

Deterrent theory: the theory indicates that there can be the control of a crime through the

utilization of punishment that brings together a proper degree of severity, celerity, and certainty.

Expected utility principle: it states that individuals’ acts in a way that would benefit them as well

as reduce loss. Through this theory, individuals are willing to increase their pleasure as well as

reduce their pain.

Social learning theory: Robert Merton developed this theory with the anomie concept, which involves a

split between the goal of an individual and the impediment possessed by the society to attaining these

goals. In 1992, Robert Agnew indicated that worry and stress is a criminal behavior impetus and that the

source of these emotions is anomies. There exist three main forms of strain namely lack of capacity to

attain a goal, positive motivations’ loss, and the quantity of negativity in the life of an individual. There

are two ways of measuring strain namely the identification of the life aspects by the subject or the

predetermination of the strain causes by a researcher and asking the respondents whether there is

existence of such strain in their life. According to Agnew’s research, there is a connection between the

negativity and the life of a person that is then connected to the criminal behavior.

According to the experts of juvenile justice, the Missouri model is a potential reform

movement that is emulated by many states to reduce youth confinement cost. California, whose

annual spending on every incarcerated juvenile stands at $200,000 had a reallocation of $93

million in the expenses of the prison by sinking state confinement. Facilities like Missouri Hills


near St. Louis do not have the barbed wire that characterized the traditional prison. The Missouri

model limits the number of youths living in a wooden cottage style dormitory to 10, and each of

these facilities has two facilitators. The majority of the other states do not have such an

arrangement and most of them maintain the traditional juvenile justice system of putting the

juveniles in the same cells with the adults. The most impressive thing about the Missouri model

is that it has lowest rate of recidivism in the nation. Other states for instance Illinois, Louisiana,

and Florida are focussing on bringing improving the facilities to prevent the juveniles from

running. In order to avoid confinement, some states works at the level of the country to ensure

that the youths remain in their community while they are been rehabilitated. According to the

advocates, this option is cheaper compared to the residential care. The two largest systems of the

state namely the California and Texas cut long-term confinement of the juveniles, requiring that

each county would use detention halls to house offenders of low-level.

Each year, one-half over a period of two years cut the youth population in Texas while

the state of California reduced its youth population from 10,000 in 1997 to 2,500 presently.

However, many critics see county and city detention programs as uneven and indicate that there

is an inadequate monitoring of these facilities by the states. Using the Missouri model

techniques, Missouri was able to cut the population of the adults from 2005 to the first half of

2007. Through the Missouri model reform, there is a nationwide impact for instance a 12%

decline in the number of the juvenile offenders from 105,000 juveniles to 93,000 youths from

1997 to 2006.


A study done by Krisberg, Vuong, Hartlney, and Marchionna (2010) looked at the means

that can be used to reduce the correction system of the state. According to the study, the creation

of the state-wide correction centres for the juveniles took place in 1941. The initiation of the

juvenile system was the creation of the CYA (California Youth Authority). For three decades,

the CYA population did not go beyond 7,000. Towards the end of 1970s as well as at the

beginning of 1980s, the CYA population began to rise. CYA was later changed into Division of

the juvenile facilities. There was however a decline in the population of the youth offenders in

1997. The data for this study was from various agencies of the state as well as from the interview

that was conducted with individuals who had knowledge of the declining trend of the CYA

population. There was also a review of the media coverage regarding the youth crime. The data

showed the change of the numbers and the media review as well as the interview provided the

changing numbers’ context. Just like the Missouri justice system, there is a declining trend of the

juvenile offenders in the California State. The rate of the arrest of the Juvenile felony was 2,902

in 1991 to 1,345 in every 100,000 youths of ages 10 to 17 in 2009. The two systems show a drop

in the number of the juvenile arrest. In California, the reduced arrest has led to a decline in the

custody of CYA since fewer arrests will translate into fewer youths in the facilities.

One of the focuses of the California juvenile justice systems is the public safety. The

primary goal of the California model of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate as well as

treat the juveniles. The Missouri model shares the same goal of restoring as well as treating the

juveniles, preventing them from returning to their old habits. There are numerous methods as

well as programs used by the California model for addressing the crimes committed by the

juvenile, ensuring that the severity of the crime is considered, as well as regarding the offender’s


background. The California models run a number of programs such as treatment, incarceration,

detention, as well as community supervision. In addition, the system offers increasing response

to the increasing severity for instance the formal probation, informal probation, incarceration,

and detention. Since the primary goal of the California juvenile justice system is to ensure that

the juveniles are being rehabilitated, they system works with other agencies to achieve this goal

and these agencies include the schools, agencies of the social services, as well as community-

based organizations. Following the arrest of the juvenile offender, a law enforcer has a right to

take the juvenile either to the juvenile hall or to the offender’s parents. Since there is

overcrowding in most of the juvenile halls, only violent offenders are taken into these rooms, and

the rest of the arrestees are released. If there is a placement of the juvenile into the juvenile hall,

the department of the probation or the attorney of the district may take the youth to the juvenile

court and file a petition there, a move similar to the filing of charges in the adult courts. The

district attorney in the California state may also opt to ask for the remanding of the juvenile to

the courts of the adults. Once the minor is proved guilty, he or she is placed on community

probation, placed in a group home or foster care, or incarcerated in the juvenile camp within the

county. Consequently, the judge may opt to send the juvenile to the authority of the youth. The

California juvenile system ensures that 97% of the of the juvenile offenders are supervised by the

county department, and the remaining 3% are submitted to the Youth Authority and the state

become their primary responsibility.

The California system has identified numerous treatment services for the juvenile

offenders. The policy has identified several factors that may put the youth at the risk of


committing a crime, and they include the family dysfunction, school failure, mental disorder, and

substance abuse. Among the intervention services proposed by the system include the school

services, social services of the county, as well as the community-based organizations. The

California’s Division of Juvenile Justice provide academic, vocational education, and treatment

programs that addresses criminal and violent behaviour, substance abuse, medical care, problems

of the mental health, as well as maintaining secure as well as safe learning environment. The

assignment of the living units is based on the age, institution violence risk, gender, as well as

their needs for the specialized treatment. Unlike the Missouri model, the integrated behaviour

treatment model forms the framework for the programs of DJJ of California. The aim of this

model (integrated action treatment model) is to ensure that there is a reduction in the institution

violence as well instilling anti-criminal attitude to the juveniles. In addition, the model provides

skills to the youth on how they can manage their environment. There is thus some similarities

among the California model and the Missouri model in that they both serve the purpose of

rehabilitating the youths. Just like the Missouri model, there California model ensures that the

youths are attending schools to attain a diploma of the high school. Since the year 2004, the

number of the youths who have achieved academic success through this model stands at 5,632.

The number of juveniles who completed the high school education rose to 300%.

When there is a recommendation for an intervention for the youth, there is efficacy when it comes to

the reduction of the recidivism rate. In addition, there is the promotion of the positive outcomes of life

using the community administered intervention or those administered outside the juvenile justice

system. Such programs appear to reduce the rate of recidivism by about 22 percent and at a lower cost

than the cost incurred through imprisonment. According to researchers, youths treated in an outside


secure environment have positive outcomes. Recent studies indicate that while appropriate treatment

improves the outcomes in both the community and the institution settings, high success occurs in

community setting than in the institution setting. Comparing the large residential and the community

programs are compared; research shows that there is the dampening of the appropriate services

positive effect by the residential facilities. According to WSIPP (Washington Institute for Public Policy),

more taxpayers’ money would be saved if there is an investment of alternative approach other than

incarceration.

In Colorado, there is the decentralization of the juvenile justice system. Colorado State has three

main law enforcement agencies namely the municipal police department, Colorado State Patrol, and the

Sheriff’s department. Each county of the Colorado State has a sheriff whose term lasts for four years.

The main role of the sheriff is to maintain the jails within the county, provide criminal and civil paper

service, as well as investigating cases involving crimes. The county funds the Department of the sheriff.

The department of Colorado municipal police primary role is answering the service calls and temporary

housing prisoners prior to their transfer to the county jails or while pending to be released. The

Colorado State Patrol turns the cases involving the juveniles to the sheriff department or the local

police. In general, the main role of the juvenile law enforcers includes putting the juvenile into custody

temporarily without a court order when there is a strong ground that a juvenile has committed a

delinquency act. In Colorado, a juvenile is only taken into the custody once there is an insurance of a

court order. There is an appointment of an agency or an individual to perform screening or intake

function for a juvenile who is taken into the temporary custody.


The Colorado Intensive Aftermath Program is run by DYC (Colorado Division of Youth

Corrections), its operating area is the Denver Metropolitan, and these areas include Jefferson, Denver,

and Arapahoe counties. Various techniques such as the education, psychological, and standard battery

instruments do the assessment of the juveniles in this program. Other assessment techniques include

the youth offender service level as well as the adolescents who are living independently, and this is

through employment and education. The Colorado program ensures that there is service delivery

continuity. The model also offers individual counseling, vocational training of skills, experiential activities

of learning, parent orientation, survival skills, and anger management skills. Apart from that, the youths

in the Colorado family are engaged in numerous counseling groups. The majority of the youth in the

program spends several months undergoing programming in the day treatment that offers a high

structure level during the day. Several other activities of monitoring the youths include the random

urinalysis and curfews. Through the Colorado program, the youth are required to be reporting to the

supervisor team once per week.

Numerous studies indicate that there is a high likelihood for the incarcerated youths to recidivism than

youths who undergo supervision through the settings that are community-based.

A study of the incarceration of youths in Arkansas found that there was a high rate of recidivism

and apart from that, the incarceration experience is an important factor in increasing the recidivism

odds. The study also found that approximately 60% of the studied youths went back to the DYS

(department of youth services) in a period of three years after their release. The study further indicated

that there was an increase in the possibility of going back to the DYS for a prior commitment youths by


13.5 times than for youths possessing a weapon (3.5 times), poor relationship with the parents (0.6

times), or gang membership (2 times).

Similar findings were found in Texas where there was less likelihood for the youths who were

placed under a community-based program to committee delinquency behavior than incarcerated

youths. 63.4% of the 443 studies about the justice systems of the juveniles show that youth who

received interventions that put more emphasis on the community-based treatment, as well as other

alternatives parallel to incarceration, had a less likelihood to recidivism than those with no intervention.

In addition, the study showed that 32 to 37% of youths who are provided with the employment as well

as behavioural programs were likely to recidivate compared to a higher rate of recidivism (50%) for

youths who did not receive any form of intervention.

Recidivism studies from large residential facilities of correction, such as the training schools

show a high percentage. A study done by youths discharged from the two training schools of Minnesota

in 1991 indicated that there was a re-arresting of 91% of these youths five years after they were

released. The similar study in Maryland sampled 947 youths whose release from the correctional

facilities was in 1994. According to the study, 82% of the youths were referred to the criminal or juvenile

court in a period of two and a half years following their release. In the state of Washington, 59% of the

youths who were incarcerated were returned to the incarceration center for a period of one year while

68% in two years.

Numerous other studies show a similar pattern of a high percentage of youths being re-arrested

few years after their release. Incarceration is not the way to handle the youths who are involved in

delinquency behavior. There is a need to alternate incarceration with other programs as these programs


are effective when it comes to public safety. According to research, the majority of the youths desist

from illegal as well as delinquency behavior on their own without the criminal or juvenile justice system

interventions. However, when there is the involvement the two systems or one of them, such a move

would impede the youth’s development. In addition, involving other of the system would derail the

chances of the youth to successfully transit into adulthood. There is the disruption of the youth engaging

naturally with the members of the family, work, and school. Recent studies have shown that

confinement has a high likelihood of reinforcing delinquency behavior in the at-risk group than

individual treatment in the community. In addition, confining a young person in a confined facility would

make him/her feel that the society has socially isolated him/her. Because of this, the youth aremore

likely to associate with his or her peers as they feel that they are isolated socially.

A study done by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office indicated that the

likelihood of the youth returning to their old behavior is high if they have a direct contact with the

juvenile court. In addition, the percentage of the youths likely to repeat the same delinquency behavior

following their referral stands at 41. Incarceration can also hinder the process of natural development of

getting educated and being employed as the youth does not have equal opportunities likes the youths

who remain in the community. When a youth does not develop these attachments, he/she is likely to

have reduced recidivism. The study, however, fails to recognize the role played by the confinement

facilities. Although the confinement facilities are associated with so many setbacks, many youths change

their behaviors through these facilities. According to a study done in 1993, the rate of crime among the

youths is low among the youths who have stable jobs. Due to the education, opportunities of

employment, and natural processes of life, research indicates that the incarceration process could make

a person to an unstable employee. However, no sample size or the methodology is well established in


the study. The study also fails to recognize the youths who succeed in education and employment after

the incarceration.

References

Champion, D. J., Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. J. (2013). The juvenile justice system:

Delinquency, processing, and the law. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.

Bonnie, R. J., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A

developmental approach.

Missouri Bar. (2011). Missouri juvenile law. Jefferson City, Mo. (326 Monroe St.,

Jefferson City 65101: Missouri Bar.

Wilson, J. B. & John F. Kennedy School of Government. (2013). Cross-branch

collaboration: What can we learn from the collaboration between courts and the division

of youth services in Missouri?. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

Recommendations


As the years goes, several programs on the comprehensive aftercare have been generated.

Among these programs include the Maryland’s juvenile aftercare program for drug treatment,

the Michigan Nokomis Challenge program, as well as the PIPAP (Philadelphia Intensive

Probation Aftercare Program). Such programs are not present n Missouri, and it is important for

the model to include them to ensure that there is efficacy in the juvenile service delivery.

However, the programs should be proper to avoid problems during the program

implementation. In addition, such programs should be inclusive of all the groups, bow the low

and the high recidivism risk groups. There is a need to focus more on the criminology factors

and more components of treatment should be involved. Although the Missouri model is among

the best in the US, there is a need for more, and there is a need to monitor the youth once

he/she is released back into the community. Such a youth should receive support from another

program for instance support for education once he/she is living in the community. In addition,

another program whereby the youth who have made a change while in the juvenile custody

should be implemented with the aim of positively influencing the youths within the community

to change. The Missouri model should also incorporate some of the interventions provided in

the intensive aftercare program (IAP). The aim of IAP is the reduction of the recidivism among

the parolees with high risk by preparing them to better prior to their release into the

community. A highly structured as well as an enhanced transition from the lives in confinement

to the life in the community would make the parolee to benefit in many areas such as peer

relations, education, mental health, and family relations. The aftercare models by Armstrong

and Altschuler integrates the theories of criminology namely the social learning, social control,

and the strain theory to offer an explanation for a serious, as well as a chronic delinquency.


According to Armstrong and Altschuler, a serious as well as a chronic delinquency has a close

relationship with social disorganization, weak control generated by the inadequate control, the

strain that is generated by the disorganization among others. According to them, an effective

intervention needs intensive supervision, as well as services both after the youth, is released as

well as during the reintegration and incarceration. The model of IAP also entails a correctional

continuum comprising of three segments namely the pre-release as well as preparation planning

for the period of incarceration, structural transition requiring the participation of the aftercare

and the institutional staffs prior to as well as following the re-entry into the community. In

addition, the model also entails the reintegration of the activities to ensure that there is an

adequate delivery of the services, as well as a necessary social control level. This should be the

alternative model for the current Missouri model. The IAP’s central component is the system of

the overarching case management. The IAP model is a mechanism that attains coordinated

planning as well as consistent and continuous provision of services, referral, as well as observing

juvenile offenders who are placed in a secure confinement awaiting transition into the status of

the aftercare in the community. There are several element of the model, and they are as

follows:

Risk assessment as well as classification: to maximize its capacity for the reduction of the crime,

the focus of IAP is high-risk offenders. Sometimes, the youths who passes through the Missouri

model tend to go back to their old ways. With IAP, there is the utilization of the authenticated

risk screening instrument to identify clearly the youths who are at a higher risk.


Individualized case planning incorporating family as well as community: this component gives

the specification for the need for the institutional as well as aftercare staff to identify the service

need as well as treatment of an offender soon after commitment as well as plan the means of

addressing those needs during the incarceration, community aftercare and the transition. The

component also aims at addressing the youth problems in relation to their peers, families,

schools, as well as other social networks.

Intensive scrutiny and services: Although the model of IAP offers a close supervision as well as

control the offenders of high risks within the community, the model also necessitate treatment

and service. Such an approach requires adequate number of staffs to ensure that the caseload is

small. It also requires funds to ensure there is the provision of services. Ideally, the services

provided by IAP are parallel to those offered in the institution.

Graduated incentives balance and consequences: The model of IAP requires that sanctions are

used to chastise inappropriate behavior and the use of rewards to mark progress or to

encourage. Since the programs on intensive supervision are intrusive, there is a likelihood of the

occurrence of many technical violations, for instance, the curfew violation. Unlike the Missouri

model that relies on cottage and supervision of youths in small groups, the IAP model creates a

partnership with and working relationships with families, agencies, and organizations to ensure

that the program is successful. There has been a successful implementation of the IAP program

in Nevada, Virginia, and Colorado States.


Another recommendation would be increasing the number of MTFC (Multidimensional

Treatment Foster Care) as an alternative to the Missouri model. Instead of putting the youths in

small groups, the best alternative would be to place these youths into foster homes where a

family would be given a responsibility of one youth. Individual treatment is essential, as it will

enable close monitoring of the child. The first step would entail retaining the youth with the

foster parent with total restriction, but with the improvement of the youth’s behaviour, there is

the loosening of the restriction and more freedom is accorded to the youth. Although there is a

close monitoring of the youth by the foster parent, the youth also receives training on the social

and job skill from a therapist. The birth parents also receive training on how they can discipline

the child properly. On average the rate of recidivism reduction by MTFC stands at 22 and the

method and unlike other models, it is cost-effective.